By talking about how the US and Britain had grown rich through trade and 'imperialist' protectionism and mentioning racism, the GP seemed to be implying that the poverty in China was somehow created by these western countries.
Aren't those modern "buy British" or "buy American" movements voluntary? Might there not be good reasons for supporting those who are economically tied to you by culture and legal jurisdiction?
There is no possible way I can read the GP to mean that. He only mentions imperialism and racism after talking about, and with clear reference to, "Buy American".
> Might there not be good reasons for supporting those who are economically tied to you by culture and legal jurisdiction?
Yes and no. But if the support takes the form of a bail-out, you're just wasting your money while delaying the inevitable and making the eventual crash much more painful. If you instead let industries fizzle out over time, it's much easier for something to appear to take it's place.
Good grief. Downvoted multiple times without explanation?
The original top-level article that this thread is about made what seemed to be a reasoned point at the end about the bailout of the auto-industry, and I am simply asking mseebach whether he disagrees with it, since he made reference to bailouts.
Might want to revisit all those centuries of Chinese history.
There is a gap of over 300 years between the fall of Ming dynasty and the establishment of the People's Republic of China, roughly from the time Mayflower Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock to the end of WW2.
I think the GP meant modern protectionism in the sense of "Buy American/British/etc" movements.